On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 12:41 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > The following came up in #gentoo-qa yesterday, in a discussion between > mgorny, soap and myself.
Hey, I was waiting for the Council agenda mail to discuss this ;-). > So, the question is, should we allow ebuilds > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License, v2 or later > in the repository, or should we even encourage it for new ebuilds? > > I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. One the one hand, I think > that GPL-2+ should generally be preferred because it offers better > compatibility. For example, the compatibility clause in CC-BY-SA-4.0 > won't work with GPL-2. It will also enable us to switch to GPL-3+ (or GPL-n+, in general) in the future, if we ever have a reason to. > On the other hand, we would presumably never achieve a complete > transition to GPL-2+, so we would have ebuilds with either GPL variant > in the tree. Not sure how big an issue that would be. Updating ebuilds > wouldn't be a problem (as the old header would stay), but devs would > have to spend attention to the header when copying code from one ebuild > to another. We should work on getting approval from as many devs as possible, then the risk of inaccurate relicensing will be safely low. Then, there's the general problem of how much of ebuilds is actually copyrightable, and I don't think there will be any reason to object to it if ebuild doesn't have some really original code. > Thoughts? > I'm (obviously) all for it. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
